Legal Opinion

Lancaster v. George

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 30, 1934No. Appeal, 86PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The use-plaintiff’s claim against a surety bond was based on the rent due for a ditcher scoop leased to Frank George, who bad a contract to complete sewer improvements in Lancaster. the bond insured the faithful and prompt payment of labor and material: Act of June 23, 1931, P. L. 932, section 1905. the part of the bond in question being, “......for material furnished and labor supplied or performed in the prosecution of the work......in aid of or auxiliary to the prosecution of the said work, whether or not the said material or labor enter into and become component parts of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. National Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
  2. Philadelphia v. Jackson & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  3. Commonwealth v. A. Stryker, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  4. Philadelphia, to Use v. StangeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Nolop v. SpettelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Commonwealth ex rel. Pandolfo v. Pavia Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  3. Philadelphia School District v. B. A. Shrages Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  4. Commonwealth v. CicconeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  5. CPS Distributors, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1984

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API